I'm the abortion campaigner name-checked by JD Vance. I'm glad he exposed UK censorship
Adam Smith-Connor had no prior warning before JD Vance name-checked the Southampton-born physiotherapist in an address to the world's political elite.
The 51-year-old army veteran was convicted in October for praying silently outside a Bournemouth abortion clinic in November 2022.
He was given a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay £9,000 for breaching a ban on protests within a legal buffer zone around the clinic in Bournemouth, Dorset.
When the US vice-president invoked his case at the Munich security conference in a speech hitting out at European nations for clamping down on free speech, singling out Britain as the 'most concerning' case, Mr Smith-Connor was 'deeply moved'.
He said he was 'delighted' that Mr Vance was 'exposing the reality' of censorship in Britain.
'I am tremendously grateful that the vice-president is showcasing the deterioration of fundamental freedoms in the UK and… holding the UK accountable for prosecuting innocent people,' Mr Smith-Connor said.
'The UK is a democracy founded on deep respect for fundamental freedoms.
'It is right and good that the US should be exposing the reality of what is going on,' he added, claiming that Britain was 'undergoing a crisis of censorship'.
While the US is 'recommitting to free speech', he fears that the UK under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer is slipping further and further away.
The court was told during Mr Smith-Connor's prosecution that he bowed his head and clasped his hands outside the British Pregnancy Advisory Service in Bournemouth, in a silent vigil that lasted just three minutes.
He had been praying for his unborn son, who had been aborted 22 years ago, which the 51-year-old now regrets.
'My son Jacob's life was brief, but it mattered and I'm deeply moved that the value of his life is being acknowledged by others,' Mr Smith-Connor said.
'As a fellow Catholic I assume like me [Mr Vance] acknowledges that every abortion is a tragedy not just for the baby whose life is lost but also for their family.'
In his Munich speech, Mr Vance picked up on a policy change instituted by the UK Government, which banned protests, including silent prayer, within 150-metre buffer zones around abortion clinics from the end of October last year.
A similar ban was introduced in Northern Ireland in 2023 and another came into force in Scotland on Sept 24.
Mr Smith-Connor was prosecuted under a public spaces protection order, which was introduced in 2022 by the local council to cover the Bournemouth clinic as it had been previously targeted by protesters.
The order created an area around the clinic so women visitors and staff members could come and go without being harassed and subjected to verbal abuse by pro-life campaigners.
Labour's legislation goes further in creating legally enforced buffer zones around abortion clinics. It is already sparking fresh confrontations in the battle between 'free speech' and protecting women's rights to abortion.
This week, West Midlands Police moved on another woman engaging in silent prayer outside a local clinic. Mr Vance noted in his speech that Mr Smith-Connor's case was not a 'fluke' or a 'one-off'.
Mr Smith-Connor said the vice-president's intervention 'showcases what is at stake if Britain does not change the law imposing nation-wide 'buffer zones around abortion facilities'.
'These laws do nothing to protect women,' he claimed. 'They are targeted to go after peaceful expression. Now it is up to Britain to heed his words and set about changing the law.'
Both men are veterans of overseas wars: Mr Smith-Connor was deployed to Afghanistan, while Mr Vance served in the United States Marine Corps in Iraq.
Mr Smith-Connor said the experience had made him 'deeply grateful for the freedoms we are promised as citizens of Britain' and warned that 'those freedoms are slipping away'.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lammy is picking a needless fight with America
The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them. That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries. Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia. At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel. Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism. The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed. Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons. The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'. The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history. Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests. In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla. At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies. It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy. The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves may have just killed Nato
There will be a moment, some time in the next few years when the US will genuinely consider leaving Nato. And if it does, we should not be surprised. It wasn't as if they didn't warn the rest of us. About the only thing Donald Trump and Barack Obama ever agreed on was that Europe must make a much bigger financial contribution to Nato. In 2014 at the Cardiff Summit, the Treasury furiously resisted the demands. All sorts of tricks were pulled and definitions were stretched to get the UK to 2 per cent of GDP. The Americans, in their polite way, asked nicely. They've been asking ever since. Because as they command all Allied forces in Nato they knew the truth about the state of everyone's forces. While public scrutiny was kept at bay using secrecy and 'operational reasons', SACEUR – Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the military boss of Nato and always an American – grew increasingly concerned as Russia got more and more aggressive. And still European capitals, including London, carried on cutting. Not until 2019 and Boris Johnson did the Ministry of Defence turn the corner with real money and real reform. Previous Conservative and Labour governments had used the Red Arrows and Trooping the Colour to pretend that all was well. But Ukraine found us out. Nato and the international community needed to act: and as we examined our inventory ministers could see just how weak we had become. I remember when we debated gifting the AS90 155mm long range artillery to Ukraine I was informed that while we had 73 guns on the books only 19 worked! Or when I tried to increase the number of tanks to be upgraded to Challenger 3s I was told it was impossible because so many of our tanks had already been stripped of parts to keep others running. You might say that I should have known all that detail on day one. But you'd be surprised how well the services can hide bad news when they want to. Last week we witnessed Labour's first defence review for more than 20 years. It was heralded by re‑announcing many Conservative procurements. As a review it was weak: clearly budget-led not threat led. The big decisions had been made beforehand, and without 3 per cent by 2030 the review would clearly be hollow at birth, as it was. It was also an insult to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the equivalent of sticking two fingers up to the White House. Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Rather than making tough decisions on public spending priorities, Rachel Reeves chose to use Treasury tricks to deceive us all. The Government has folded in intelligence spending, Ukraine spending and even Foreign Office money to the notional 'defence' figure. The result is that core defence spending will not even be 2.5 per cent as promised: not even close. There was no path to 3 per cent either. It was just a con all along. If John Healey spent as much time battling the Treasury as he did repeating my government's plans or deceiving the public with spin then he might have had some success. But it is clear he is Labour first and UK defence second. How dare this Government avoid the solemn duty to defend our shores and properly equip the men and women of the armed forces. Labour was the government that sent our troops to war in Snatch Land Rovers and they are destined to repeat that betrayal. Next week Donald Trump will arrive in Holland for the Nato summit. He will bring with him a message that we must all spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on actual defence, not counting spies or diplomats. The Donald will not be bought off with Treasury tricks. I was in Washington last week and some very senior people in the White House and the Pentagon genuinely believe Trump may leave Nato in two years. They are serious. So we need to either demonstrate we are pulling our weight or we need to compensate for the 70 per cent loss to Nato capability if the US leaves. Based on Rachel Reeves's efforts we will do neither. History may point to this as the moment when the UK surrendered its place in Nato and triggered its demise. And all the while, Putin and Xi will be licking their lips. Waiting for their moment. For that little bit of Estonia or Finland. The best Donald Trump can do next week is say that Nato is a club with a subscription. No money should mean no entry. Ben Wallace served as Secretary of State for Defence from 2019 to 2023. He is a former British Army officer Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Reeves announces £6 billion to provide millions of NHS tests and procedures
Rachel Reeves has announced a £6 billion investment to speed up tests and treatment within the NHS, after setting out huge year-on-year rises in the health service's budget. New scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres are among the things which the additional cash will pay for, with the aim of providing up to four million more tests and procedures over the next five years. The announcement comes after the Chancellor put NHS funding at the heart of her spending review on Wednesday, raising its budget in a move worth £29 billion a year. This comes, however, at the expense of other areas of public spending. The new £6 billion funding will help to meet the Government's target of reducing NHS waiting lists in England, the Chancellor claimed. 'Over a decade of underinvestment from the previous government put the NHS on its knees, with people across the country unable to get the care they need. We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around,' Ms Reeves said. She added: 'Part of our record investment will deliver four million tests, scans and procedures, so hard-working people can get the healthcare they and their families need. 'There is no strong economy without a strong NHS, and we'll deliver on our Plan for Change to end the hospital backlog, improve living standards and get more money in people's pockets.' The latest spending commitment will help patients get access to diagnostic scans and treatment in places such as shopping centres and high streets, speeding up their diagnoses. The Government hopes this will help to cut NHS waiting lists, meeting Labour's goal of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said: 'Since taking office we have been relentless in our drive to cut waiting times for patients, delivering over 3.6 million extra elective care appointments and reducing the overall waiting list by over 200,000. 'The £6 billion investment we are announcing today will generate millions more vital diagnostic tests, scans and procedures for patients across the country.' On Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after giving the NHS a 3% annual increase in funding at the spending review. Some health leaders are, however, sceptical that the Government will meet its target, despite the funding boost provided at the spending review. Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents all health organisations, warned 'difficult decisions will still need to be made as this additional £29 billion won't be enough to cover the increasing cost of new treatments, with staff pay likely to account for a large proportion of it'. He added: 'So, on its own, this won't guarantee that waiting time targets are met.' Sarah Woolnough, chief executive of the King's Fund charity, said: 'The Chancellor said she wants the public to have an NHS there when they need it. 'It is hard to see how all the things she mentions: faster ambulance times, more GP appointments, and adequate mental health services and more can be met on this settlement alone. 'Particularly when large parts of this additional funding will be absorbed by existing rising costs, such as the higher cost of medicines, which are currently being negotiated, and covering staff pay deals.'
